The sentence of sentence against the defendant shall be suspended.

Punishment of the crime

Defendant

wife C has a claim amounting to KRW 110,00,000 against the victim D (Nam, 56 years of age), and the victim is a director of the G Hospital at the F medical institution affiliated to the Seoul Seongbuk-gu Seoul E second floor.

On September 11, 2012, at around 18:21 to 18:38, the Defendant: (a) in the above G Hospital, and (b) in fact run the above G Hospital while the victim did not repay the above debt to Defendant C; (c) the Defendant found the above G Hospital; (d) voluntarily entered the office of the victim; and (e) made the judgment on the above obligation to the victim’s face; and (e) made the judgment on the above obligation to the victim’s face.

Defendant

Comprehensively taking account of the act, the Defendant interfered with the victim’s hospital management business by force.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. The witness H, I, and D respective legal statements;

1. Application of video-related Acts and subordinate statutes to the screen of CCTV on the site of the case and the USB file (satisf);

1. Relevant provisions of the Criminal Act and Article 314 (1) of the Criminal Act concerning the selection of punishment;

1. Penalty fine of 500,000 won to be suspended;

1. Articles 70 and 69(2) of the Criminal Act (50,000 won per day) of the Criminal Act for the inducement of a workhouse;

1. The decision as to the assertion of the Defendant and the defense counsel under Article 59(1) of the Criminal Act (see, e.g., the circumstance leading the Defendant to the instant crime, the motive for the Defendant’s crime, the fact that the time of the Defendant’s money at the hospital recorded in the crime does not reach a considerable violence or disturbance, and that there is no criminal record against the Defendant)

1. At the time when the Defendant sought the victim as stated in the facts charged, the hospital’s duties were terminated. At the time, there was no patient within the hospital, and the Defendant did not exercise the force of force against the victim as described in the facts charged.

2. The threat of force of the crime of interference with business in determining the crime of interference with business is all the forces capable of suppressing and mixing a person’s free will, and is not charged with either tangible or intangible, as well as threats against violence.